Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

The Committee deliberated in private.

On resuming

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome all our witnesses to this Committee sitting. We will hear evidence this morning from a range of organisations that are concerned with domestic violence. To help everybody, not least those who will be taking everything down verbatim, could you please identify yourselves to the Committee and can I suggest that Mr. Brian Moore, from my left, commences the introductions?

Brian Moore: Good morning. My name is Brian Moore. I am the Chief Constable of Wiltshire police and I am the Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman on violence and public protection.

Deborah McIlveen: Hello. I am Deborah McIlveen. I am policy manager for the Womens Aid Federation of England.

Ceri Goddard: Good morning. I am Ceri Goddard. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Fawcett Society.

Steve Connor: Good morning. My name is Steve Connor. I am the Chief Executive of the National Centre for Domestic Violence.

Jane Keeper: Hello. I am Jane Keeper, Director of Operations for Refuge, the national domestic violence charity. We are the main provider of specialist domestic violence support for victims of domestic violence.

Q 160160

Nicholas Winterton: Thank you very much. I shall ask each of you to make an introductory comment lasting a minuteno moreon the overview of those you represent on the Bill. When you answer questions from members of the Committee, could you please be as succinct as possible, not least because in this sitting we have five organisations giving evidence and we have to finish by 10.25. Could you begin, Mr. Moore?

Brian Moore: The Association of Chief Police Officers, through its council of 43 chief officers, has discussed its support for a domestic violence protection notice and order. The council agrees in principle that this is a necessary piece of legislation to improve the safety of victims of domestic violence. We have discussed with the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales its support as its members are likely to be key to the Bills implementation. It supports the need for the Bill and will support it if Parliament approves it. That is the position of the senior echelons of the police service on the Bill.

Deborah McIlveen: We welcome the proposal because it is based on need and it will assist the police to uphold their duty to protect the public. It should form part of a co-ordinated community response to domestic violence. Our last annual survey showed that on one day in a refuge, 65 per cent. of the women had reported to the police, yet prosecutions were being taken forward for only 16 per cent. of those women, so there is a big gap in police responses and provision of protection. Space away from the perpetrator will enable women to become free and consider their options and their childrenwe must not forget any children who are involved. Evaluation of such orders in other countries shows that they are effective because the specialist support service enables the victimit may be a male victim, we should rememberto look at their options and to be free from the perpetrators control. Our main concern is that in other countries the legislation ensures that the police make a referral to the support service. At the moment the Bill does not provide for that.

Ceri Goddard: The Fawcett Society also welcomes the proposed revisions. We think that they address a really important gap in the protection for victims of domestic violence, particularly in the immediate aftermath of an incident, when evidence shows that women are particularly vulnerable. We also think that the provisions allow an additional safe space for those women or men to be free from coercion and intimidation, which is the very specific nature of the crime that we need to bear in mind when we are thinking about general legal applications. Should they choose to avail themselves of longer term existing civil protections, we also agree that it is vital that the provisions are accompanied by wider support services for victims, and also perpetrator interventions and support for male and female perpetrators, for example, in securing housing, should that be necessary.
To conclude, we think, critically, that the provisions will strengthen the states ability to fulfil its positive obligation and its duty under the European convention on human rights to protect victims right to life and their right to a home and family. We also think that the provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights in terms of the right to a fair trial for alleged perpetrators.

Steve Connor: We are the largest domestic violence legal charity in the country and we specifically deal with legal remedies that are available at the moment. Of course, under the Family Law Act 1996 there are various orders and a raft of provisions that can provide very valuable protection at the moment, but there are some gaping holes and problems with the current system, particularly the inability of a third party, such as the police, to make an application on behalf of the victim, who is usually very intimidated, daunted and fearful at the time. The police force having the ability to make that application is welcome.
Timing can be a problem as well. It is usually very hard for a victim of domestic violence to have a safe space to make informed decisions and to allow them to move forward with their life. We are very much in support of the legislation. I think, as has already been mentioned, one of the key elements is the co-ordination as part of a co-ordinated response working with agencies out there to provide continued support. We are certainly in favour of the legislation.

Jane Keeper: Refuge positively welcomes the proposals as filling a serious gap in current remedies. The point of crisisimmediately after a domestic violence assaultwe know is the time when 75 per cent. of homicides occur in domestic violence cases. That is the period when all our agencies need an opportunity to work together to provide a co-ordinated response to the victim and her children. That will assist the police, in Refuges view, in providing much needed initial protection in those early days, so that we have the opportunity to get to the victimshe will usually have experienced years of control of her every action by the perpetrator and will be terrified. She is frequently totally ignorant of the support services that are potentially available for her and of the measures and remedies that might be open to her. There is a need for counselling and for her to feel safe and that she is being protected, to start to make some calm decisions about her and her childrens future and to make safety plans with specialist domestic violence agencies. Refuge welcomes the proposals.

Nicholas Winterton: I am most grateful for those overviews from all of you. The questioning will begin with Tony Baldry.

Q 161

Tony Baldry: We are all agreed that domestic violence is a serious issue that has to be tackled. It is particularly serious because it inherently involves a breach of trust. I was fortunate last year to be part of the police parliamentary scheme, which involves spending a number of days with the policein my case, the Thames Valley police. I was very impressed by the seriousness with which domestic violence was takenspecialist officers and specialist unitsand by the fact that whenever there was a report of domestic violence, it was dealt with as an immediate blue-light incident that officers went to.
My concern is to look at the practicalities. On Second Reading, one of our colleagues, Humfrey Malins, who is a part-time judge and sits as a Crown court recorder, made rather an interesting speech. He said that he was
old enough now to be released from Standing Committees.[Official Report, 18 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 78.]
As you can see, he is not on the Committee, so clearly we are all young enough to be on such Committees. I want to put my question to Mr. Moore, but if others want to chip in, please feel free to do so.
Humfreys first point was: why does one need a domestic violence protection notice? If there is an incident of alleged domestic violence, why does one not simply charge the perpetrator for assault, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or whatever the appropriate criminal charge is, and then deal with exclusion from the matrimonial home, if need be, by bail condition?

Brian Moore: The position is that we want exactly that. The domestic violence protection notice is not an alternative to a criminal justice approach. The police service will always try to arrest and prosecute for an assault on a victim. There are 200,000 arrests per year, but only about 60,000 prosecutionsthere is a gap of about 140,000 cases where there is insufficient evidence available to bring a prosecution. In those circumstances, the perpetrator is released from the police station and goes back to the very address where he was arrested perhaps 24 hours earlier. That is an extremely dangerous time and that is the gap we are trying to close. When the police have done all they can to bring a prosecution after arrest and it is simply not possible to do so, there remains a gap where there is a high level of risk. In that period, we want the superintendent to be able to issue a notice to buy the victim some protected space while other legal remedies are worked through. I agree with Mr. Malins to the extent that we should be trying as hard as we can to bring a prosecution, and that is what we will continue to do, but there is a significant and substantial gap that unfortunately leaves victims very much at risk when a person is released from the police station without charge.

Q 162

Tony Baldry: Could we go through the practicalities of this? I do not know about Wiltshire, but my impression in Oxfordshire is this: Oxford is divided into divisions and, of a night, each division has a sergeant, maybe four constables, a duty inspector for PACE purposes, and there is one superintendent for the whole county based in Oxford. Under the provisions of the Bill as drafted, the superintendent has to listen to the representations of those upon whom a DVPNdomestic violence protection noticemight be imposed, which indicates that the superintendent has to have the individual physically in front of them to hear their representations.
Let us suppose that there is a domestic violence incident in Banbury on my patch. Two officers will have to take the alleged perpetrator in a police car to St. Aldates in Oxford to find the duty superintendent. That would mean two police officers being taken away from the usual fouronly fourin Banbury at night. If that to happen, why does it have to be the rank of superintendent? Why not inspector? If it is a superintendent, do you not see a lot of logistical issues?

Brian Moore: No, I do not. We have discussed this carefully with the Police Superintendents Association. There is at least one superintendent on duty in every policy force 24 hours a day. Under PACE provisions, they have been doing that very successfully for 25 years and have been available to deal with issues relating to bail and human rights. It will not be a problem for the superintendent to engage properly in his or her responsibilities in this casewe have discussed it.
Secondly, the duty should be at the rank of superintendent. This is a serious issue of potentially depriving someone access to their home, and that is the minimum rank that we think should be engaged. If, for whatever reason, the superintendent was totally tied up with a serious terrorist matter, a chief officer would be engaged to fulfil the duties of the superintendent on the matter. We think that a serious deprivation of rights and liberties is being contemplated, and it should be done at a senior level by someone who is already experienced, through using the PACE provisions, to understand the effect upon liberty. The joint view of ACPO and the Police Superintendents Association that it should be at least the rank of superintendent. We are confident that we can provide coverage across the country, as and when cases arise.

Q 163

Tony Baldry: I do not dispute that every force might well have a duty superintendent who is there, as you say, to cover a whole number of things. My concern was more that police constables will be taken off patrolling duties, often to travel quite large distances, to find a superintendent. They do not do that at the moment. If it is a PACE inquiry, they will find the duty inspector who will be in their police station. I do not know about Wiltshire, but people are going to have to travel quite large distances, are they not?

Brian Moore: I have never come across the example that you have outlined, where the prisoner is taken to the superintendent. Superintendents are on call, in vehicles, and their job is to travel to various custody suites to deal with various aspects of PACE. It will be the superintendent who is mobile and travelling, discharging a number of obligations. They will carefully sequence this, so they will deal with all the PACE applications and the domestic violence applications at the same time. We have been managing the multiple demands upon a superintendents time quite successfully for 25 years. In my experience, it is the superintendent who travels to the custody suite, rather than prisoners being ferried all over the place to meet the superintendent.

Q 164

Tony Baldry: There seems to be a lacuna here. Say a person accused of perpetrating domestic violence is brought into the police station and the custody sergeant does not think it appropriate to charge them with an actual offence. One of these notices is issued, and then they will have to come before the magistrates within 48 hours. If this happens on a Friday night, Oxford or Banbury magistrates court will hear all these orders on a Monday morning. What test will the magistrates have to apply that they would not apply in an instance of common assault? What issues will they have to consider at that time?

Brian Moore: A prosecution will not be possible because the Crown Prosecution Service will have advised that there is no likelihood of conviction on the basis of the available evidence. There is a high burden of proof: beyond reasonable doubt. The superintendent and the magistrates will be considering, on the balance of probabilities, if there has been violence and there is going to be violence again in the future, unless an order is put in place by the magistrates to keep the protected space going, so that the victimproperly supported, as my colleagues have said, by advisersmay decide to pursue a civil order to keep that perpetrator away. One test is that beyond reasonable doubt there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. The magistrate and the superintendent consider, on the balance of probabilities, there has been violence and there will be violence again, and it is necessary to act to keep that victim safe.

Q 165

Tony Baldry: I have a couple of questions for Dr. Connor, but this is my last question to you. Humfrey Malins made the point that there was under-charging, so that police officers or police forces tend to charge common assault
because it does not go to the Crown court, so they get a quick guilty plea and a lesser sentence. Very nasty violence is not being dealt with in the courts as it should be due to under-charging. The problem is endemic among police forces in the south-east, as far as I can see.[Official Report, 18 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 81.]
Do you think there is under-charging at present, because the CPS prefers matters to go for a quick plea to magistrates court?

Brian Moore: I was surprised at Mr. Malins comments. The police service and the CPS have been left in no doubt about the seriousness of domestic violence and try to prosecute to the maximum. His view does not reflect my experience. We try very hard to bring charges that reflect the gravity of what has gone on.

Q 166

Tony Baldry: May I ask Dr. Connor some quick questions? There appear to be orders under the Family Law Act 1996 and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, so they are already on the statute book. If I understood the Second Reading debate correctly, those provisions have simply not been implemented. If those provisions of those Acts, which are already on the statute book, were to be implemented, would there still be a need for this new piece of legislation?

Steve Connor: The two orders have obviously been enactedin 1996. The section to which I think that you refer is the one that allows an interested third party to make an application on behalf of the victim. Is that the section that you mean?

Tony Baldry: I assume so, yes.

Steve Connor: It certainly would assist if that section were implemented to allow someone else to make an application. The real difficulty in using the Family Law Act as a very quick emergency remedy is that it puts the application in the hands of the victim themselves, so they have to go to court and make the applicationthey are the applicant in the case. The proposed system would allow the police at that point to take the perpetrator into custody. If a charge is not made, they could issue, with the permission of the superintendent, a domestic violence protection notice. Although we have always said that ultimately a non-molestation order or an occupation order may be granted during the duration of the domestic violence protection order, the measure would speed up the process and allow the victim to have a safety barrier during that first 48 hours that they would not ordinarily have.

Q 167

Tony Baldry: The proposal uses the word molesting, which comes from matrimonial and family law and civil legislation. What we have here is a concept of the police effectively bringing civil proceedings before the magistrates court. Is not part of the issue that it is now so difficult for people to get legal aid? In days gone by, people could get non-molestation ordersin fact they still canor ouster orders in the county court, but the difficulty is accessing legal aid to do that. Effectively, what used to be done at the county courts or the civil courts will be done in a rather hybrid way in the magistrates court, with a mixture of the police and magistrates having to apply, not a criminal test, but a civil test to proceedings brought by the police.

Steve Connor: You are absolutely right. I completely agree with the first part of what you said. People not qualifying for public funding is a monumental problem. The Legal Services Commissions stance that everyone who is a victim of domestic violence qualifies for public funding could not be further from the truth in practice, and we deal with that day in, day out.
Leaving that issue to one side, even if public funding were available to everybody, the problem still arises that it is in the victims hands to make an application to the county court for the protection that they need. Even if they are eligible for public funding, it can take some time to be able to get that legal protection in place. They have to find the solicitor, an outreach worker, a McKenzie friend or an advocate to go to court.
As far as the police having to bring a civil action to the magistrates court, there will, as Mr. Moore said, still have been an arrest; the case will have gone through the police process, and it will still go before the magistrates court at the lower burden of proof, but that is not much different from the present position with things such as ASBOs, which are brought on a lower burden of proof. Since the introduction of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which has criminalised the breach of the civil orderthe non-molestation orderwe are already dealing with a hybrid mix of both criminal and civil law, with two different burdens, so I do not see that that will be a major problem or a major change.

Nicholas Winterton: Tony, you have been holding the floor for more than a quarter of an hour20 minutes.

Tony Baldry: I hope all my questions have been relevant, Sir Nicholas.

Nicholas Winterton: They have been relevant, but I feel that we have to allow other members of the Committee to participate. We have limited time. The last question from Mr. Baldry, at this stage.

Q 168

Tony Baldry: I apologise to colleagues. I hope my questions have been relevant. On Second Reading, the Minister intervened on Humphrey Malins to say:
that it is proposed that they should act as a pilot, so that we can look at how they work and determine whether they are a helpful addition to other proposals that will reduce domestic violence and help the victim.[Official Report, 18 January 2010; Vol. 504, c. 78.]
Do you understand the scheme as being a pilot? If it is, how do you see it being monitored, assessed and generally evaluated?

Steve Connor: With all due respect, Mr. Moore probably has more information to be able to answer that question.

Brian Moore: Yes, it was ACPOs suggestion to the Home Department that this should be a pilot, so that we can properly understand all the implications and all the unintended consequences that might flow, particularly to make sure that we resource our intentions properly and that we understand the implications of resourcing. We think it would be a wise and prudent step to limit this. We think that, between the Home Department and the Ministry of Justice, officials can put in place an evaluation plan from which an objective decision can be taken about whether the scheme has been successful or not, before it is rolled out nationally.

Q 169

Douglas Hogg: I have only two brief questions and am quite happy to hear from everybody, because I expect very brief answers. I always approach these matters from the civil liberties point of view and I am concerned about the civil liberties of P. You have obviously focused more on the other party. I note that in clause 25 there is no requirement, as I understand it, for the court to consider representations made by P, if P is available to make them. I take it that none of you would have any objections to a requirement being written into the Bill that the court should listen to the representations of P.
Secondly and differently, as far as I can see in clause 25 or the related clauses, there is no ability for P to apply back to the court during the currency of the domestic violence protection order for the court to vary or discharge the order. Again, I take it that none of you would have any objection to my writing into the Bill a right for the P to apply back and the court to have an ability to discharge or vary the order if it thinks fit.

Ceri Goddard: I will come in on the first question, and I might have to hear the second one again. My understanding is that the courts are subject to article 6 of the European convention on human rightsthe right to a fair trial. That piece of legislation already, exists with certain bars that protect civil liberty.

Q 170

Douglas Hogg: So you would say that you have no objections to its going in the Bill, because you think it is in the law anyway?

Ceri Goddard: I think we would have to take advice from lawyers, but as far as I understand it, it is not a requirement, because the courts already come under the European convention on human rights. All of the courts proceedings have to follow the standards of civil liberties and a fair trial for both

Q 171

Douglas Hogg: Would you not think it a good idea to put it on the face of the Bill?

Ceri Goddard: In every Bill that is produced that requires courts to consider it, that has not necessarily been the case to date. I think it is a moot point, but I certainly agree in principle that the court must uphold the standards of article 6. If, for some reason, that needs to be outlined in the Bill, let it be so; but I would be surprised if that were necessary, because the courts have to operate under that standard.

Nicholas Winterton: Deborah. Do you wish to come in on this?

Deborah McIlveen: No.

Brian Moore: In principle, I agree. I would ask you to consider that the duration of the order may be as little as 14 days. It should be a proportionate court hearing. Some great trial, with lawyers everywhere, for a maximum of 14 or 28 days, needs a proportionate hearing and testing of whether violence has occurred or may occur again. If we are clear about the brief, then of course in principle what you say is right, but I ask you to consider the proportionality of the hearing in relation to the nature and duration of the order.

Q 172

Douglas Hogg: You are saying that you do not object to the principle, but wonder whether it is worth incorporating on the grounds of proportionality. Am I right in thinking that that is your view?

Brian Moore: Correct.

Steve Connor: As far as I understand it, at least the perpetrator or respondent is made aware of the date of the magistrates court hearing. That reflects the current situation in the civil law with a non-molestation order or occupation order. Once that is granted without notice at the initial application, the respondent is made aware by service of the return date, but they are not required to turn up at the return date. They are simply made aware of it. In our experience, about 40 per cent. of respondents do not turn up on the return date, so I do not think that there is anything controversial or new in that. I think that genuinely reflects the current situation, using the protection available under the Family Law Act. I may have misunderstood this point, but I think it would be quite hard to require the respondent

Douglas Hogg: I am not requiring any response. If he turns up, he should be given the opportunity to make representations. If he chooses not to turn up, that is bad luck for the respondent.

Brian Moore: Yes, and the county courts, dealing with without notice applications, are now stepping away and even going in the other direction by not having return dates. Under the case of re F, they are taking away the automatic return dates, which were seven or 10 days down the line, and putting the burden on the respondent to make an application back to court to have the order varied or discharged or to make representations about the initial order that was granted. I think it reflects perfectly what is already there.

Q 173

Douglas Hogg: Are you suggesting that an order can be made without the respondent being told of the return date?

Brian Moore: No, that is not the point I am making. In the Bill as it is at the moment, the respondent is made aware of the return date. I am saying that that is exactly the same, traditionally, as what has been happening on the without notice applications through the county courts for both non-molestation orders and occupation orders. Relatively recently, the county courts dealing with non-molestation orders and occupation orders have been stepping away from having a return date, so rather than having the return date on the face of the order, stating that the respondent can come back to court on 7 March, for example, they are now taking that out and simply having in the final provision of the non-molestation order the provision that the order will remain in force for 12 months. If the respondent feels that it is necessary to come to court and make their representations, the burden is on them to come to the court and make an application to be heard. The theory is that that will save a massive amount of court time.
Of course, there are concerns and arguments about human rights and whether there should be an automatic return date, but that was summed up in the relatively recent case of re Funfortunately, I do not have the reference to handwhich said that the human rights aspect was satisfied by allowing the respondent the right to come to court and put their representations, but not making that an automatic right. With that in mind, there is nothing really controversial about that at all.

Nicholas Winterton: Thank you. Jane, do you wish to come in on that?

Jane Keeper: It do not think so. I think my colleague has adequately summed up that this is akin to measures in an injunction, and there is an established acceptance of practice there now.

Q 174

Tom Brake: It is clear that all the panel members are very strong advocates of the domestic violence protection notice, but I would like to examine a little further the circumstances in which you think it should apply. Clearly, there will be cases of one-off incidents, perhaps where both parties are involved in domestic violence, for example. In those circumstances, would you expect the notice to be applied, and is there not the risk that a one-off problem that might have been resolved within the household could actually be escalated by the application of a DVPN? To play devils advocate and make a counter-argument, is there a risk that the impact of a DVPN on a partner who has a history of violence will escalate that violence and that the victim will be on the receiving end of it?

Nicholas Winterton: Who would you like to answer that?

Tom Brake: Whoever feels it is appropriate.

Deborah McIlveen: You raise a number of points. Yes, we are strong advocates for the orders. It is very important, first, to understand that domestic violence is not an equal thing that goes on between two people. There are very clear perpetrators and victims. Our understanding of how the orders will work is that the police will clearly identify the victim and the perpetratorthere should be no confusion about that. One of the current problems is that a lot of counter-allegations are being made by male perpetrators who then claim to be victims. Respectthe national organisation that works with male victims and that runs the male victims helpline and the national perpetrator organisationhas developed special assessment processes for determining who is the perpetrator and the victim where there are counter-allegations.
That is something of which the police are obviously aware and have to take into account. The police will have to separate the parties, as they normally do when they respond to an incident. They will then talk to both parties and, having done that, they will also carry out a risk assessment, which will indicate the risk. Again, that reiterates the need for the orders, because the order will ensure that the victim can be safe and protected and that the perpetrator is removed from the scene. The police will have to get the address of the perpetrator, so they know where the perpetrator is, and they will have to put in place measures to manage the perpetrator risk. That is where it is very important that the support service immediately comes into play, because it has to work with the victim and the childrenwhere there are childrento develop safety and support plans and begin work with the victim. I do not think I have covered all of your points thereyou made a number of thembut I hope that answers to an extent some of your questions.
Can I add a further point about prosecution and conviction? Where a prosecution can be upheld and taken forward, that is great, but once again, the police will take into account any previous incidents. We have to remember that, on many occasions, most of the victims in our services have reported to the police at least once, and they have usually experienced incidents of domestic violence many times before they actually report to the police. The other factor to remember is that although the police respond to incidents, domestic violence is a pattern of controlling behaviour that the perpetrator uses. They use physical violence and other forms of violence, such as psychological, emotional and sexual violence, to control the victim.
Given what we responding to, that is where we think we need the orders. We have already heard that not many prosecutions go forward; the new provisions will fill that gap. The other thing that the Committee needs to realise is that a prosecution and a conviction do not necessarily increase the safety of the victim. Whether the conviction results in a custodial or community-based sentence, victims will still very often have to take measures and put things in place to make themselves safe, because the sentence does not mean protection.

Jane Keeper: I want to express the fact that domestic violence is never an isolated incident. By its very nature, it is a systematic pattern of a range of coercive behaviours of power and control, involving financial abuse or, in 50 per cent. of cases, physical or sexual abuse of the children. Physical violence is merely one of the many patterns of behaviour that we see when we work with domestic violence cases. So only some of the things that the perpetrator is doing may constitute a crime, but when organisations such as Refuge are involved, we see a whole pattern of complex behaviours that are very challenging for the victim to deal with.
It is perhaps hard for people who have not had personal contact with domestic violence to understand itone might imagine it is to do with phenomena such as marital breakdown or conflict between a couple. Domestic violence is nothing to do with that. It is not an expression of an interpersonal problem. It is rather that, because there is no equality between the partners enabling them to have a healthy argument in the first place, it is a systematic pattern of power and control and it is not going to be resolved by sorting out a conflict. It needs to be sorted out by a co-ordinated response from appropriate specialist organisationsthe police and organisations such as ours here todayto protect victims and their children.

Brian Moore: Our research in Austria and Germany, where such orders have existed for a number of years, suggests that they are most effective in interceding at an early time in the offending pattern. They are most effective earlier on. We think that in our jurisdiction, just because of volume, we are more likely to use them in more risky cases. The research says they are effective at preventing less serious cases from becoming more serious, if applied properly.
The second point is that it is important that the perpetrator understands that it is the police making the decision about risk, not the victim. We are making a professional assessment of the likelihood of violence occurring again and the victim is out of the equation. It is not her decision: it is the state, through the police, deciding there is an extant risk. That way the perpetrator will know it is the police officersthe police services decisionwhich we hope will not increase the risk to the victim.

Steve Connor: I agree with the second point that you were talking about on the potential for escalating the situation and the violence, but to a certain extent it really strengthens the argument why this is so important. Any incident of domestic abuse, as we already heard, is systematic: it is a cycle; it is power and control; it is not akin to any other type of violent crime. Any point that the victim gets the strength together and decides that they are going to make a move and that this is the time they need to get out of that violent or abusive relationship is an incredibly dangerous time. A person leaving is one of the most serious and potentially risky times: they are a lot more likely to be killed or assaulted at that point.
You are right that any type of action, whether leaving the home, approaching people for emergency accommodation or going to and getting help from the police or a solicitorwhoever it may becould well escalate the violence. That is one of the potential problems, which is not going to go away. Hopefully it will not escalate, but that is the point at which it will. That emphasises why this protection is really needed. The police need to be able to grant these orders to allow the person to have a period of time where they can get their life together and make these moves in safety, where the situation cannot escalate and where at least, if it does, the police have the power to do something about it.

Q 175

Tom Brake: I do not know whether Ceri Goddard wants to respond as well. I have a quick supplementary for Brian Moore after you.

Ceri Goddard: I will try to be brief. I think the core point you raise about whether the orders will take into account different individual circumstances and will not just be applied in a blanket way is important, but I do not think that means that we should not support the orders. It is for the police to take account of the particular circumstances in each case, which I do not mind raising. For example, there may be an impact from extended family and community networks, or there may be a danger in relation to the womans wider family if a notice is orderedfor Traveller women and ethnic minority groups.
There are certain groups, such as lesbian, gay and bisexual groups, or religious faith groups and minority groups, that are reluctant to engage with the police and protection orders may not be appropriate for them. There is also evidence that female perpetrators of domestic violence are more likely to be arrested than men; we would not want to see these orders being disproportionately used against them. You would have to provide alternative support if an order was issued to the carer of a victim, for exampledomestic violence is often between a carer and, say, an older person. All those things would need to be taken into consideration.
As your colleague Tony Baldry mentioned earlier, we are talking about specialists and trained police officers who I trust to know what they are doing. I do not think that that means that the order is flawed. The provisions are entirely adequate, but this is why things like the pilot are quite important, because it will actually give you more guidance and good practice for the particular circumstances that will need to be taken into account.

Q 176

Tom Brake: I want to come back to Brian Moore on the point made by Ms McIlveen about allegations and counter-allegations. In your experience, will your officers always be able to identify the real perpetrator, even though they may be making counter-allegations? However many allegations and counter-allegations are flying backwards and forwards, will you be able to apply the DVPN to the appropriate person?

Brian Moore: Clearly that would be our intention. The existing training and practice is that we should try to identity the worst perpetrator and bring them to justiceso one arrest from the scene. The background to the case will throw light on that. There is often a history. That is why it is important that before this power is exercised there has been an investigation and an arrest. The perpetrator will be brought to the police station with his lawyer, and an investigation will take place that will throw light on this. We have up to 24 hours to get to the heart of what has gone on. If we cannot bring a prosecution, the superintendent is invited to consider the DVPN option. I cannot say that we get it right in 100 per cent. of cases, but it is our intention, our training, our policy and our process to identify the perpetrator where one exists.

Q 177

Alison Seabeck: I have a query about the involvement of the Ministry of Defence in this part of the Bill. My constituency has one of the highest levels of domestic violence in the country. Much of it, unfortunately, is in the forces. When a forces family divorces, the children and wife, if she is not a member of the forces, have to get out. What is the legal position on debarring the perpetrator from an MOD home? I assume that the MOD is brought into this fully and is prepared to allow the wife and children to remain in the home while the member of the forces is removed. Does anybody have any idea where the rights to the home lie if this is taken further?

Brian Moore: I think that is a good question for Dr. Connor. I do not know the answer.

Q 178

Alison Seabeck: It is obviously easier for the Army or the Navy to re-house a perpetrator temporarily because they have accommodation, which is not necessarily the case outside the forces. But there might be a complication here.

Steve Connor: At this point, I shall hand over to someone who is waving.

Deborah McIlveen: My understanding is that the order cuts across any form of tenure. The MOD, I would guess, whatever its tenancy agreements, will have some kind of arrangement, perhaps not for this specific circumstance, but for circumstances such as divorce or separation for other reasons. So it would not make any difference to the tenure. Outside in civilian life the perpetrator may own the property and the victim may not. My understanding is that that would not matter for the period of these orders.

Nicholas Winterton: I think that the Minister would like to come in here.

Q 179

David Hanson: Does Mr. Moore agree that when the Government drew up these proposals they considered those issues, and that the point that Deborah has just mentioned has been tested against our assessment of the legislation? Obviously, that will be subject to consideration by the courts, but that would be across the board. We would obviously test the operational delivery of that as part of the pilot. Would you agree?

Brian Moore: Yes, I would.

Jane Keeper: Refuge positively welcomes the inclusion in the Bill of victims of domestic violence who are armed forces partners. We know that victims of domestic violence with partners in the armed forces are often particularly isolated and in particularly difficult situations as regards getting confidential help and advice. So their inclusion is really welcome.

Q 180

Alison Seabeck: Thank you for those comments. My final question is about the experience of other countries. Brian Moore has already touched on Germany and Austria; there, when an order is in place, there is an automatic requirement for support services to get in touch with the victim. A lot of that happens now in the UK, but is it an automatic requirement, and should it be?

Jane Keeper: Refuge is very concerned that the requirement to involve support services for the victim ought really to be included in primary legislation. The whole point of these notices seems to be that they give us a breathing space in which we can work with the police, and in which the police can provide initial protection for the victim, so that crisis services, such as those run by organisations that are represented at this table, can get access to the victim and offer them support. It is very important that the measures to ensure that the support gets to the victim in this immediate aftermath are, if at all possible, enshrined in primary legislation. We are anxious that that measure could become eroded because of worries about funding and so on. It is so importantit is the whole point of thisthat it should be built in.

Q 181

Alison Seabeck: In a sense, do the police need a one-stop place to go to, rather than having to try to select part of the support network?

Jane Keeper: The appropriate kind of agency would be something like the independent domestic violence support advocatesor the IDVA services, as they are often calledwho are able to provide an immediate wraparound service. They are familiar with how the CPS operates and with bail conditions, and they are specialists in protecting and supporting victims.

Deborah McIlveen: It is critical that the support service be brought in. In terms of safety and risk, it may well be very dangerous not to provide that support. Certainly, in Vienna, that is written into the legislation. I know that they have not missed referrals because in Vienna, the specialist support service works closely with police. They have regular monitoring meetings where they cross-reference everything, and say, The police have issued this many notices. Even though they work closely together, they still formally make sure that there are not more notices issued than they have had referrals for.
For a victim and their children not to get the appropriate support would undermine the whole way in which the process is intended to work. It is okay keeping the perpetrator away, but it is very difficult if the victim is left there with nothing. We have heard about the pattern of coercive control. Victims have no self-confidence; their esteem is usually completely damaged, so people need support and to be told, Yes, you have a different option in your life, and you can be free from this. People need to be given the choices to be able to move on with their lives.
In terms of how to access the support services, the ACPO guidance on domestic violence already has written into it that any officers attending a scene should provide the victim with information about their local specialist support service. That is already in the ACPO guidance, and we have heard about the co-ordinated community response to domestic violence. In local areas, the different statutory and voluntary-sector agencies should already be working together, so it should be a simple process to make that referral, which is critical. It is dangerous not to have it.

Q 182

Robert Flello: My first point picks up on something that Mr. Moore said about it being a police decision, rather than the victims decision, to go ahead with this. I am just curious to hear the comments from the rest of the witnesses about what the perpetrators perception is likely to be, regarding whether it is a police decision or the victims decision, and what the knock-on effects might be for the victim, in terms of the perpetrators perception.

Steve Connor: That is a really important point, and that would need to be included when training police officers and magistrates. It is an absolutely crucial point that needs to be made to the perpetrator or the respondentthat the decision to exclude them from the home is a decision of the police, not the victim. I emphasise that that is a crucial message to get across.

Ceri Goddard: I appreciate your question, but it is also important to think about the victims perception. We probably all understand that this is an intervention in response to a package of behaviour. We should think about how important it would be for the victim to hear from the police that what was occurring might result in a loss of life, was a crime and was unacceptable behaviour. Despite what a victim may say or feel, there is rightly provision for the police to undertake a duty to protect that individual.
The perception of the victim is important. That is why the support services point is so important. Ultimately, practically, you are just buying a bit of time and space for the woman or man, whatever the circumstances, so that they are able to make that decision themselves and to act for themselvesto take civil proceedings, which already exist. This is a recognition that you do need that specific intervention to give that person time. The autonomy and perception of the victim are also important.

Deborah McIlveen: I think the police, the general public, and all those working in Government and the domestic violence field already want to send a clear message to perpetrators that what they are doing is wrong. This measure could help the police say, What you are doing is wrong, and we are going to take this action. The point about victims is very important, and that has been made.
One further point may interest you. There is already a situation in specialist domestic violence courts where the victim may not want to make a statement and appear in court, and may try to withdraw. It has been called a victimless prosecution, where victims have been forced to go to the court to give evidence, because the CPS has pressed ahead with the prosecution irrespective of the victims wishes. That has happened in only 2 per cent. of cases, but the victims afterwards have said, We are really glad that that happened. We have to remember what we have already heard a lot aboutcoercive control, threats and fear. Womens Aid is supportive of this process, because we want to empower victims and give them choices. Where a perpetrator is breaking the law of the land, that matter should be enforced by the police.

Jane Keeper: Domestic violence continues because it is underpinned by social attitudes about norms, about what is acceptable. We think it is very positive that perpetrators who think they have the right to behave in this way in their own home are given the message that it is not acceptable to society; it is not acceptable to the police. They are often astonished when the police arrest them: they were only beating up their wife.
We think it is positive that victims are also learning that this is not acceptable. We know the behaviour is associated with the children being directly physically or sexually abused by the perpetrator, as well as the children witnessing the abuseusually of their mother. It is not acceptable. Victims are so isolated, but with this response, they will learn that they are not alone, that the perpetrator is not all-powerful, and that there is help out there.

Brian Moore: That is a really important point regarding the role of the state and the purpose of the state in intervening at this time. We have been clear that we think that in an emergency situation, the state should intervene and perhaps override the views and wishes of the victim, for their protection. That should be a temporary position, until the victim is properly supported to make competent and informed choices about their future and their safety. If, once they are in that competent position, they decide that they do not want the help of the state, that must, of course, be a matter for them. It is not a permanent position of overriding their views, but a temporary one at a time of trauma and, effectively, emergency.

Q 183

Robert Flello: I want to take up the point about children in this situation, which has been mentioned a couple of times in passing. Does the Bill provide sufficient support in respect of children who witness domestic violence and sometimes, horrendously, are party to what is happening? If not, what measures should be taken to strengthen the Bill, as regards protecting children?

Jane Keeper: The Bill gives further protection to children affected by and living under domestic violence, because the gap that we have identified, and that all of us around the table say is therethe 140,000 cases every yearinvolves thousands of children who currently may experience the police intervening in their home. Those children, if they eventually get to organisations such as ours later, say, Why did no one do anything? The police were called. Why did nobody help us? Children are learning from experiences such as those that it does not matter and is not important. The Bill creates the opportunity to intervene and protect children. Often the most effective way to protect children from domestic violence is to get help to the non-abusing parentthe victimand the Bill does this.

Deborah McIlveen: I shall be as brief as possible. Jane has already indicated that it is vital that children get support. The violence impacts on the children. That does not necessarily mean that a child who has experienced or witnessed it will become either a perpetrator or a victim. However, it does affect their behaviour in all sorts of ways, particularly with regard to their education. So it is vital that they get support as well.
Let me mention one of the current key issues and problems. Most refuge services have childrens workers, so if a referral went to a specialist domestic violence service that was a refuge, of which there are about 400 across England, the children would get some specialist support. There are also outreach services that do not generally have as much specialised support for the children. It is a key issue, because it is about enabling children and young people to achieve their potential. Not giving them the appropriate support can impact on their further lives. So the Bill could do a bit more to ensure the provision of support planning for children and young people.

Steve Connor: I will be quick. We have talked comprehensively about the protection that is available through the civil courtsthe non-molestation orders and the occupation orders. We should not forget that similarly, there is a raft of child protection legislation available under section 8, so we can apply for prohibitive steps orders or contact orders and, subsequently, residence and whatever else.
If we use this quick, emergency protection period, in which someone can have that space to make decisions, with the violent perpetrator excluded from the property, we have some automatic, quick protection for children, because the perpetrator cannot come back. In that time, we can then go to the county court and make applications to protect the children in future.

Q 184

Robert Flello: I am concerned that if the court issues the notice but does not subsequently issue an order, that may make the situation worse.

Ceri Goddard: It is a risk to be considered in the guidance to be developed for the front-line police. I am sure that these orders will not be given lightly: they will be given in a particular set of circumstances, when a front-line constable and, in turn, his or her superiors feel that there is a real threat of death, possibly, and certainly serious injury to a victim or her children. So it is a risk that can be considered in guidance and training, but it should not knock proposals out of the Bill.

Steve Connor: Ultimately, the answer is yes. If the police issue a notice and the court subsequently does not grant the order, there is at least a risk that that may escalate the situation. But that is no different from the current situation, where you would go to a court and apply for a non-molestation order. The key is ensuring that the notices are granted only in relevant situations where they are needed. That is why the superintendents intervention is so important in ensuring that they are issued only at those crucial points.

Q 185

Douglas Hogg: I have two brief questions. My first is to the chief constable. I imagine that everybody agrees that this is essentially a temporary order. You are not contemplating a series of orders made on the application by a constable. You would say, I think, that if there was a continuing situation, there should be an application to a county court.
Separately and differently, on clause 21(2), on the threat of violence, where a personlet us call him Phas been violent to his partner, but not violent at that stage to a child, the officer may contemplate that, because the person is of a violent disposition, he may be violent to the child. I am not sure that subsection (2) is broad enough to justify the issuing of the notice. The officer might think that notwithstanding that the child has not been threatened with violencebecause the person has threatened violence to the spouse, he might threaten violence to the child. Should we therefore enlarge subsection (2)?

Brian Moore: Yes, it is our view that this is a temporary emergency protection while civil law ultimately provides adequate support.
My answer to the second question is, on balance, no. I think that would take the Bill into another area altogether. This is primarily about protecting a principal victim from a principal perpetrator. The existing law is sufficiently clear, strong and available that, where a constable called to a scene has concerns for the safety and well-being of children in that household, there is adequate protection elsewhere. There is a danger of drawing together two things, one of which is already well dealt with.
I can see no gaps in child protection legislation; it is how well we choose to draw it in, so I think that one should be cautious about going too far down that road. Our training on domestic abuse already tells us to look for the other victims in the household, particularly vulnerable people, after establishing the safety and well-being of the primary victim. We do that once we are at the scene, and I think that the law is adequate to enable us to do that. My colleagues may take a different view, but that is mine. I would caution against going too much further down that route through the Bill.

Q 186

Andrew Rosindell: Clearly, all the witnesses today have supported the introduction of domestic violence protection orders for various reasons. Will they succinctly say precisely why the current law is inadequate?
Secondly, may I have a specific answer from Brian Moore to this question: if a crime is about to be, or has been, committed, surely there would be an arrest? Given the time it would take to issue a protection order, surely an instant arrest would be the polices response.
Finally, how will the courts cope with the additional work load? Will this happen quickly, or will it take several days to issue an order?

Brian Moore: Succinctly, every piece of available legislation requires a victim to go out and do something. We are saying that the victim is in such a traumatised state that they are not competent to make such decisions at that time. The state needs to intervene to protect them so that they can make informed choices. No piece of available law provides that protection. That is why this is necessary.
SecondlyI must be absolutely clear about this to the Committeethe police envisage the notices being sought only after an arrest has been made, not instead of. The police will pursue a criminal prosecution to the best of our abilityby arrest and through investigation. It is only when that potential has been exhausted and where the evidence is not available that the police should consider using a domestic violence protection notice. They should not be used instead of an arrest or investigation, but after.
Will there be increased work, particularly for the magistrates court? Yes, there will. It is difficult to say how many of these notices will be taken forward to orders, which is why it is appropriate and, indeed, wise to have a pilot, so we can properly understand the throughput and the effect on the existing system of what we are proposing.

Nicholas Winterton: Would any other witness wish to comment briefly on what Brian Moore has said or add anything?

Deborah McIlveen: I will be as brief as I can be. We have already heard that the current law does not allow the police to exclude the perpetrator from the home and that the victim has to do that. Steve can put me right on this, but I know that one year there were about 22,000 non-molestation orders issued across England. You have the statistics: police attended 700,000 incidents and there were 200,000 arrests. So, in relation to 500,000 incidents, one has to ask what happens. This gives something to protect the victims of incidents where nothing happens. Victims call the police because they want help, which is why we think the measure is a good idea: it will offer the public some protection that they do not get currently.

Ceri Goddard: I just want to agree with Brian, particularly on his first point about where the current law is inadequate. That would be our position, too. It is a practical, timing issue. We are talking about real womens everyday lives and the reality is that it can take days, weeks or even months to get access to legal representation and for the civil provisions to kick in, by which time, the evidence shows that women are being killed or seriously hurt, as are their children. I think that the temporary nature of this does provide for that gap in the lawit is not instead of anything.
Will it be more work for magistrates courts? Possibly, but personally I think that that is a price worth paying given the shocking statistics. It should be a priority for our common law justice system to lower what are highly unacceptable levels of violence and death.

Jane Keeper: The proposals fill a vital gap where victims and organisations assisting victims would currently frequently be looking to the police to provide some protection and would be disappointed by what police are currently able to do. This is such a huge problem in our society. It is the 21st century, but huge numbers of women and children do not have the right to be safe in their own homes. There is a glaring gap in the current remedies available. Refuge feels these proposals go a long way towards filling that gap, so we positively welcome them.

Nicholas Winterton: Dr. Connor, do you have a final brief word before I go to Tom Brake?

Steve Connor: No, other than to mirror what has been said and perhaps add one thing rather controversially about male victims of domestic violence. Approximately 18 per cent. of the 6,000 calls per month that we deal with are from male victims of domestic violence. That is a huge problem. Research shows that it is usually much harder for a man to contact the police or a support agency, because as well as having the usual violence, intimidation and emotional fear factors, you have the additional hurdle of feeling embarrassed that you are a man and you are being abused. Having the measure in place would be another step towards assisting with that, because it is the polices decision that they are taking the matter forward and that the perpetrator is being taken into custody and one of these orders is being put in place. I know I have gone slightly off on a tangent, but I think that is very positive.

Nicholas Winterton: That is most helpful.

Q 187

Tom Brake: I have a couple of disparate points. We have heard a lot about children being victims, which clearly they are in the overwhelming majority of cases, but occasionally children will perpetrate the violence. The measure does not apply to children under 18, so I wonder whether you are happy that existing legislation on domestic violence that is perpetrated by those under 18 is adequate.
Secondly, I think that we heard from Dr. Steve Connor and Brian Moore that it is extremely important that the perpetrator hears that it is the police taking action and that the police are responsible for taking action. However, you did not explain how you were going to ensure that the perpetrator heard that message. Is the fact that you will turn up and walk into someones household where, as I think Jane Keeper said, the persons response is, Oh, I was only beating up my wife, going to be sufficient to convince the perpetrator that it is the police taking the action and not the victim?
Finally, I was a bit surprised to hear you, Brian Moore, say that you did not know how many cases might turn up in the magistrates courts. I would have thought that officers often come back saying, If only we could get this victim to take action or If only we had the powers to take action for them, and you would therefore have a feel for the number of cases. However, if you do not know, perhaps the Minister has done the homework on the impact that this change might have on magistrates courts, in terms of increased demands on their time and resources, and if so he might give the Committee that information when he responds to questions this afternoon.

Nicholas Winterton: Does anyone want to intervene quickly? We have precisely four minutes before we need to wrap up.

Q 188

David Hanson: Does the chief constable agree that this measure has been discussed across government with the Ministry of Justice and that it therefore has the support of the MOJ in its pilot?

Brian Moore: Yes. I cannot give you precise figures. In my report to the Home Office, we suggested some levels and numbers, so there are some figures, but I cannot answer your question with precision. Nevertheless, I agree with you that this matter is actively being discussed.
My colleagues will address the other points.

Tom Brake: Children as perpetrators first, perhaps.

Steve Connor: Sorry, I was just about to respond to the other point first.
It was asked whether a police officer turning up at a domestic incident is enough to give the message to the perpetrator that it is the police taking the action, and I think that the answer is probably no. I think that explicit terms need to be used and that there needs to be explicit information given to the perpetrator that is the police who are taking the action, because I think that the thought in a lot of peoples minds will probably be that if they can persuade their wife, girlfriend or boyfriend not to press charges, no further action will be taken. Therefore, if action is taken there will be a concept in peoples minds that the partner must be supporting that action or that prosecution.
Mr. Moore would probably know a lot more about that issue than I do, but I would have thought that, first, the police officers themselves, having been trained, will need to make it clear directly to the perpetrator that the nature of this order or notice is that it is made by the police. There may even be a need for some wording on the notice that specifically identifies, in categorical laymans terms, that the notice has nothing to do with the intention of the victim and that it is specifically made on behalf of the police. I assume that there would be a way of dealing with that issue.

Deborah McIlveen: Shall I make a quick point about children as perpetrators? I think that the system of youth justice would deal with that issue. However, there is one point that I would like to draw the Committees attention to, which is that a lot of domestic violence goes on in the relationships of people who are aged between 16 and 18, and that issue is problematic. I am not sure whether something can be put into the Bill to deal with it. However, we would certainly welcome a measure that would address it, because, as I say, there is a significant amount of domestic violence in those teenage relationships.

Nicholas Winterton: Ceri Goddard, do you wish to add anything?

Ceri Goddard: I have nothing further to add.

Nicholas Winterton: Jane?

Jane Keeper: No.

Nicholas Winterton: Shall we finish with Brian Moore? You have been drawn into this.

Brian Moore: In terms of the children aspect of these orders, it is certainly possible that these orders could apply. The more contentious aspect is the requirement that someone should vacate their home, which is generally someone who is slightly older and who has acquired a property. That is the more contentious aspect of these orders.
However, the non-molestation, non-contact aspects of these orders could equally apply to people below 18, where, say, two young people live in their respective parental homes. So, yes, the measure would fit the circumstances and if Parliament was minded to emphasise that in the Bill, that would be welcome. I do not envisage specific problems in requiring people not to have contact with each other.

Q 189

Tom Brake: Are you advocating that the Bill should be changed to allow a DVPN to be issued against those who are under 18? Currently, it is clearly stated that people have to be 18 or older.

Brian Moore: If Parliament thought that the public requirement was for under-18s to be included, ACPO would not stand in the way. We think that it would be worthwhile for Parliament to press for a little more information.

Q 190

Tom Brake: Perhaps some ministerial feedback on that?

Brian Moore: That may be appropriate.

Nicholas Winterton: On behalf of the Committee, I thank our five witnesses most sincerely for the informed and passionate way in which they have represented their organisations and responded to what, in some cases, were very detailed questions from members of the Committee. So, to all our witnesses, I say thank you very much indeed. The information that you have provided will be most helpful in our deliberations.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No.88).

Adjourned till this day at One oclock.